Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, KULDEEP MATHUR, JJ.
Doli Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ Nos. 396, 397 of 2020
Decided On : 04-11-2022
JUDGMENT : Land Revenue Act - Writ Petitions - Section 89 of the Land Revenue Act - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the District Collector to entertain the application, the requirement of serving notice to the temple, and the violation of principles of natural justice. The court also highlighted the absence of evidence that the temple's land was part of the mining lease, and the lack of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice in the proceedings. The court allowed the appeals, reversed the impugned order, and quashed the order passed by the District Collector.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals challenged the dismissal of writ petitions filed by the appellants-writ petitioners to assail the order passed by the District Collector, Pali under Section 89 of the Land Revenue Act. The appellants contended that the District Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and that the temple was not given an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice and the requirement of Section 89(3) of the Land Revenue Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Collector's order was appealable, and the statutory remedy of appeal not having been availed, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. The court also held that the Devasthan Department had been notified of the proceedings before the District Collector, satisfying the requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing. However, the court concluded that the proceedings before the District Collector were without jurisdiction and in blatant breach of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the District Collector to entertain the application, the requirement of serving notice to the temple, and the violation of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of evidence that the temple's land was part of the mining lease, the lack of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice in the proceedings, and the violation of the mandate of Section 89(3) of the Land Revenue Act warranted the reversal of the impugned order and the quashing of the order passed by the District Collector.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, reversed the impugned order, and quashed the order passed by the District Collector.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel representing the parties. Perused the material available on record.
2. These appeals take exception to the Judgment-cum-Final Order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court whereby, Writ Petition No. 4315/2020 preferred by the appellant-petitioner Doli Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji through its village representative Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kharadi, Panchayat Samiti Jaitaran, District Pali and Writ Petition No. 5395/2020 preferred by two devotees of the temple namely Shri Panney Singh and Shri Umaid Singh, were dismissed.
3. The appellants-writ petitioners filed the writ petitions aforesaid for assailing the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the District Collector, Pali under the purported exercise of powers under Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Land Revenue Act’) whereby, the application preferred by respondent No. 5 Ram Gopal Cement Company Pvt. Ltd. to use 114 Bighas and 10 Biswas of land in various Khasras of Village Sinla, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali recorded in the name of Doli Banam Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji for subsidiary/ancillary purposes viz. mining. The District Collector also directed the respondent No. 5 to deposit compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,63,55,679/- (Two Crore Sixty Three Lac Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Nine Rupees) to the Devasthan Department within a period of one month so that the temple could be facilitated to purchase fresh chunk of land on account of disturbance of its land owing to the mining activities permitted to the respondent No. 5.
4. The writ petitions were preferred primarily on two grounds (1) that the District Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and (2) that the temple, either through the Panchayat or through its Devotees, was not given opportunity of hearing and hence, the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the District Collector suffered from gross violation of principles of natural justice and was also in contravention of the requirement of Section 89(3) of the Land Revenue Act.
For the sake of ready reference, Section 89 of the Land Revenue Act is reproduced herein-below:
(2) The right to all mines and quarries includes the right of access to land for the purpose of mining and quarrying and the right to occupy such other land as may be necessary for purposes subsidiary thereto, including the erection of offices, workmen's dwellings and machinery. the staking of minerals and deposit of refuse the construction of roads, railways or tram lines, and any other purposes which the State Government may declare to be subsidiary to mining and quarrying.
(3) If the State Government has assigned to any person its right over any minerals, mines or quarries and if for the proper enjoyment of such right, it is necessary that all or any of the powers specified in sub-sections (1) and (2) should be exercised by such person, the Collector may, by an order in writing, subject to such conditions and reservations as he may prescribe; delegate such powers to the person to whom the right has been assigned: Provided that no such delegation shall be made until notice has been duly served on all persons having rights in the land effected and their objection have been heard and considered.
(4) If, in the exercise of the right herein referred to over any land, the rights of any persons are infringed by the occupation or disturbance of the surface of such land, the State Government or its assignee shall pay to such persons compensation for such infringement and the amount of s
The absence of evidence that the temple's land was part of the mining lease, the lack of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice in the proceedings, and the violation of the mandate of Section 89(....
The statutory remedy of appeal does not operate as an absolute bar, and extraordinary writ jurisdiction can be invoked in exceptional circumstances.
The main legal point established is the rightful ownership of Deity land and the invalidity of mutations in favor of unauthorized parties.
The court upheld that parties lacking legitimate claims or authority cannot disrupt lawful mining operations, affirming pre-existing rights granted under legislated provisions.
A person aggrieved by the order granting mining lease can challenge the same before the appropriate authority of the Central Government. The petitioner-Society did not avail the alternative efficacio....
Protected tenants cannot be evicted without due process and adherence to principles of natural justice, as established under the J&K Tenancy Act.
The court ruled that claims over estate lands must be substantiated by evidence of continuous occupation before a specified date, and mining leases granted during disputes are valid.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
